Wednesday, October 27, 2004

A leader of great charisma rose rapidly through the ranks, and despite not getting a majority of the vote, became the leader of the country. He had a checkered past, but was a man of strong character. Shortly after coming to power, a major national landmark, an important building, was destroyed. The attack was perpetrated not by another nation, but by a group who's ideology went against the very spirit of the nation. Unfortunately, this attack was used as a basis for instituting laws and policies which heavily restricted civil rights and went against fundamental rights granted in the constitution. The attack also united the nation with a strong national pride. This charismatic leader went on to engage in unprovoked invasions of multiple countries and large portions of the rest of the world strongly opposed his actions. From there, things got far far worse.

The history I'm talking about is of course that of Germany in the 1930s, the rise of Hitler, the burning of the Reichstag by the communists, the Enabling Act and subsequent invasions that are part of the much more well known history. I've never been a big fan of history, but it seems imporant to know. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. -- George Santayana

I recently played Lost Valley for the second time. Unfortunately, I have to report that my earlier impression was correct. It's nicely produced and if you really like exploration games, you could get into it, butit is rather mechanical and nothing exciting. None of the mechanics really combine in interesting ways. You just do it and there's not a lot of fun, strategy or tactics. It is beatifully produced though.

Goldbrau, on the other hand, was quite good despite playing with three (I hear it is better with four) and getting one rule wrong for 2/3 of the game. I expect with four and the correct rules it would be very good. It combineselements I like (business game, simultaneous action selection) with some clever mechanics (the brewery/beergarden split, the boss mechanic) along with being generally well crafted. It is a little fiddly and isn't perfect, butit's quite good.

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Semantic markup is the new big thing, the semantic web and all that. I see it less as a cool new thing and more of a returning to our roots,or at least the roots of the web as I saw them when it first started in the early 90s.

Back in the early days of the web (1993), I had a mantra I used when explaining HTML markup to people "Semantic, not Literal". That is, an html H1 tag does not mean "bigger font". It means "1st level heading". HTML markup was meant to be semantic, and not for any aesthetic reason. It wasn't even for the reason of browser independence (though, had people stuck to semantic markup, this whole WML thing would have been simpler). It was for the reason that semantic markup is much more powerful from an information access point of view. Specifying a font color is nice, but it came at a cost of semantic ambiguity. Of course, HTML was never really fully semantic markup, it was just an appealing dream. People fell in love with the FONT tag and a variety of other literal markup tags and mechanisms. The hope for semantic markup was lost, and HTML became very much a literal presentation markup language.

Then, to add insult to injury, things like DHTML came along, flaunting the fact that HTML had become a presentation markup language, not a semantic markup language. I resisted learning DHTML for a while because of this. Once you give in and accept HTML as a presentation language, DHTML is sort of neat. When I first learned about CSS, I had some hope that perhaps it restored some of that semantic markup quality. Sadly, it did not. It does do a decent job of abstracting out "style", but HTML is still essentially purely presentational. CSS allows it to presented in a variety of styles, though, and it's nice having a relatively universal standard for those style details.

But looking at the web now, the power of semantic markup is winning out again. href=http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/12/18/dive-into-xml.html>RSS has become an extremely rapidly growing and popular scheme for information delivery. RSS is a pure semantic markup with all the presentation details left up to HTML. I currently read well over 100 RSS feeds, only a fraction of which are from blogs which prompted the success of RSS. This blog itself is accessible via RSS and many of the readers access it that way. I read the comics, the Times, a grab bag of web sites, a few search engine queries, and even a mailing list, all via RSS. It's very gratifying to see "semantic, not literal" finally getting a lot of traction.

Two other random thoughts on RSS: I expect it won't be long before some RSS feeds start including advertising entries. It surprises me I haven't really seen them yet. I just hope when the time comes it isn't overwhelming. There are some feeds I would keep reading even with a reasonable dose of ads. Most, however, I'd stop reading if ads started being included. Until then, it's a nice little garden. The other thought is that blogs, as the progenitor of RSS, share other qualities with the early days of the web. In the early days of the web, the thing to do was have your own personal homepage you created. Rapidly, as most people had nothing they wanted to put on such a page, having a homepage became something that while many people had them, it was more commonly something a university or corporation had, not an individual. Further, in the early days of the web, the goal (as much as there was a "goal") was to share information. You weren't trying to drive banner hits, collect demographic data or derive revenue. While some (many?) blog writers may now have those goals, the biggest goal I've observed is wanting to be read. RSS is a great way to make it easier to be read.

(Footnote: If you're looking for a great way to read RSS feeds, there are a variety of href=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=rss%20aggregator&btnG=Google+Search>RSS aggregator applications, but I will highly recommend Bloglines as an outstanding web based reader.)

Thursday, October 14, 2004

My wife and I looked around to try to find a parenting group in Somerville, with little success initially. Then, one day we were downtown Boston with the baby and a stranger in the elevator struck up a conversation, asking how old our baby was and whatnot. She asked where we lived and when my wife said Somerville, she said "Oh, I was in a great new mothers group in Somerville!". So, she sent us the info and now my wife has been going to this group.

Apparently though, they don't have much of a web presence, but they want to at least be findable by google, which is part of the reason for me to post here about it. They have a members-only Yahoo Group: Somerville Moms, but it's hard to find. They meet on Thursdays in Somerville. So, if you're looking for Somerville parents group, parenting group, mothers group or mom's group, hopefully you'll find this. They also have support groups in Arlington, Brookline, Cambridge, Jamaica Plain, Medford, Newton, Stoughton, Watertown, and Westwood. Their info number is 617-614-1967. I hope this entry helps other folks find these groups.

The same organization that runs these groups also runs a fathers' support group, but only in Newton. Anyone know of a fathers' group in the Somerville, Cambridge, or Medford area?

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Well, my server finally died. It has served well for over 5 years,but some combination of problems including some sort of disk problemcaused it to finally give up the ghost. I finally got a new serverand am in the process of restoring everything to its former glory. Alot of stuff doesn't work, and I'll post here when everything is back.At the moment, all the static content (myhomepage, miscellaneous other pages) is back, this blog is back,but all dynamic content (the BGRS,RGBRollcall, Game store database, Heroscape unit generator, etc.) isdown. I hope to have it back soon. If you notice any errors withaspects of the site that I list as "back up", pleaselet me know.

Thursday, October 7, 2004

I wrote briefly about Heroscapeearlier, but its worth writing more. Heroscape is fundamentally aminiatures game. I don't usually like miniatures games. They'relogistically annoying to play, lacking in good ways to keep track ofthings like which units have moved already, sometimes requiringrulers, frustrating rules about base contact and various other things.Further, they tend to be really really complicated with lots of rulesaimed at enhancing the simulation, rather than enhancing the game.Finally, a lot of them expect you to paint miniatures. Many peopleenjoy that, but I don't have the time, patience or interest.Heroscape manages to be different. I'll discuss the specific ways itavoids these problems at the end.

src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">

Overall, this is a very good game. It's biggest "flaw" is that ithas a lot of luck. If substantial amount of luck bothers you, thisgame is definitely right out. Despite that, it also has a lot ofstrategy and tactics. It also has a lot of bits. It also has a lotof opportunities for variation. It also has a lot of skill. It's gota lot of themes. It's got a lot of fun. It's got a lot of luck.It's got a lot of everything. Some might ask how a game can have botha great deal of skill and a lot of luck. In other places atheoretical game "ChessDice" has been suggested to explain such anidea. In "ChessDice", two people play a game of chess. Then, eachrolls a six-sided die. The winner of the chess game adds one to theirroll. The higher roll wins. This is a rather silly game, but it'sgot a lot of luck and a lot of skill. Heroscape is much the same way;it's got a lot of skill, but there's so much luck that it only makes amoderate impact. Unlike ChessDice, Heroscape is fun.

Another quality Heroscape had that some will enjoy and others won't isthe thematic dissonance. It can be very engaging in a geeky sort ofway to get into the idea of Vikings vs. Robots, for example. On theother hand, some may find this a barrier to being engaged in thetheme. It doesn't do it for everybody. For that matter, it has aviolent theme; most scenarios have a goal of "defeat all of youropponents units". At least it isn't collectible. (It is "expandable")

Enough with all the qualifications as to why some will not like it.It's a really good game. The components are stunningly good. Theyare beautiful, integrate well with the gameplay, are great little toysand are complete. The provided unit cards address are well designedand clear. The terrain is outstanding. The scenarios are fun andclearly playtested. The initial army draft provides for a variety ofinteresting strategic options. The units abilities are well balancedand interesting. The complexity is close to what I'd consideroptimal. It's complex enough to be interesting but simple enough toplay quickly and cleanly.

The game is not collectible, but it is expandable. Further, becausethey used standard miniature sizes, many have suggested usingminiatures from other games to use with Heroscape. I created theHeroscapeUnitCreator with this in mind. All the same, I've only sofar played with the standard units and they provide a rich andcomplete gaming experience which I don't feel will be exhausted anytime soon. I'm sure sometime I'll enjoy adding figures, but for nowthere are enough interesting combinations of the provided units for itto be very compelling. Further, the scenarios (both included, anddownloadable from the web site)provide some interesting and well tested variations such as fog, acidmist and mud.

The game succeeds by keeping the core of the game simple. The specialpowers of each unit add a richness that prevents it from gettingtedious. The terrain system adds an understandable but deep set oftactical options. And yet, they've done a very good job of leaving alot of things out. There are no "cover" rules, you either have lineof sight or not. There are never any penalties, only bonuses. Thereis no facing. There are no squad coherence rules. There is only onekind of damage. No unit has special powers that have to be looked upanywhere other than on their card. Terrain and range don't interact.Being one step higher than an opponent is just as good as being twosteps higher. Any number of rules could be argued for on simulationgrounds, but they've done a good job of picking a set that makes for agood game. In the end the rules they picked make for interesting andfun tactics.

The "ergonomics" is also very good. Something as simple as the unitcards and the turn markers solves many of the bookkeeping problemsassociated with miniature games. The "thematic dissonance" Imentioned makes the units easily distinguishable in general. Yes,there's three different Viking groups, but imagine if the game wereall Vikings. The hex based terrain allows attractive and interestinglayouts with simple and unambiguous movement and range measurements.Line-of-sight is the only aspect that could even be vaguely debatable,and I've found it easiest to just play "when in doubt, yes, you haveLoS".

As a great many people have pointed out, the components are simplyamazing. The miniatures are beautifully sculpted and painted. Theterrain is attractive and durable. The cards and other miscellaneouscomponents are nicely produced. Finally, all of this is produced foran emminently reasonable price.

In the end, this is certainly the best miniatures game I've everplayed. It's not the deepest but it is the most attractive, most welldesigned and most fun. If the qualifications above (lots of luck,thematic dissonance, fighting game) don't turn you off, you're likelyto enjoy Heroscape.

To tie together two previous entries: I wrote aboutfactcheck.org a while ago, long beforeDick Cheney's near mention of it in the debates made itfamous. I also recently wrote about knowing my audience. On FactCheck, however, while I got the URL right, I mistyped the text ofthe link as "FackCheck.org". No big deal, the link leads to the rightplace, and I just feel a little silly for such an odd spelling error.

But, it turns out other people have heard about factcheck.org, butmisheard as "fackcheck". Fackcheck.org doesn't exist, so whatdo they do? Search Google for href=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=fackcheck&btnG=Google+Search>fackcheck.Link #3, my site. So, this week I've gotten a moderate number ofvisitors who came to my site by searching for "fackcheck". Welcome,whether you're here looking for fackcheck.org, fackcheck.com,fact-check, fack-check, fack check or whatever.

The real site is factcheck.organd I highly recommend it. Cheney mentioned factcheck.com, whichsomeone (not Soros) set up to point to George Soros' web site. Thefunny twist beyond the URL error is of course that Cheney was claimingthat factcheck.org defended his record at Halliburton which it doesnot do. While Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, they did a great deal ofbusiness (through subsidiaries) with enemies of the United States.What factcheck.org does say is that the Democratic accusations ofimproprieties regarding granting Halliburton military contracts areoverblown. Inappropriate granting of contracts to Halliburton:overblown. Doing business with enemies of the USA: well, yes.Spelling errors: in the age of google, they sometimes help people findwhat they're looking for.

Tuesday, October 5, 2004

Slightly echoing my earlier comments on Fahrenheit911, it's a surreal world when the Democratic VP candidate is the one compellingly arguing for tax cuts,defecit reduction and fiscal responsibility. Andrew Sullivan has an interesting article from several monthsago which expresses some similar sentiments. Now, we have a Republican administration and legislature leading the largest expansion of the federal government in decades. It's ratherodd.

Given that the debates aren't really debates (eg, the debaters are actually prohibited from directing questions at one another), I've been pleased and impressed at the level of discourse. There's been some real substance there, and I think it managed to highlight some of the key issues that have concerned me. One of Kerry's quotesthat I thought well summarized the issue: "It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong. Certainty sometimes can get you in trouble." Afriend who grew up in Germany wondered aloud why Bush's attributes of being "resolute", "steadfast", and "determined" are considered a good thing. He observed Germany had leadership with all of those qualities in the 1940s. Being resolute and certain isn't inherently good.

I'd support Kerry over Bush on social policy grounds anyway, but I find the unflinching confidence of an administration who has been in power through torture,secret tribunals, an unprovoked war, institution of secret laws,censorshipand increased limits on civil liberties to be extremely distressing.Their certainty has gotten us into bigtroubleinIraq, and I'm afraid of where more might lead. 9/11 changeda lot of things, but it shouldn't be a carte blanche for the disaster we've been lead through since then.

Monday, October 4, 2004

Saturday was Unity Games8, which was a lot of fun. I played several old favorites (Ra,Crokinole, Compatability) and several "new favorites" (Heroscape,Einfach Genial, San Juan) and a handful of new-to-me games, which I thoughI'd record impressions of here:

Rumis: Pueblo-like game of building using 3dimensional blocks. It scores differently, in fact nearly oppositeand the gameplay is somewhat different (your pieces must touch yourother pieces). Overall, its good, perhaps has good or better thenPueblo. Plus, it comes with a nice "Lazy Susan" style board whichPueblo would benefit from.

Victory & Honor: Very good trick taking game. In fact, one of the best new ones I've played in awhile. The twist in this one is that you play three tricks ("left","center" and "right") at a time. If you play a card to your "left"trick, your left hand opponent must play the next card. It's a littlecomplicated to wrap a strategy around at first, but it's a lot of funand very interesting. Clever.

Betrayal at the House on the Hill: This new AvalonHill game is a lot of theme, which didn't really engage me, and only avery little game. It's a sort of neat idea, but not especially andthe execution is mediocre. The components are nice, and there aresome creative ideas, but I didn't see much I really thought was compelling.

Friday, October 1, 2004

While fatherhood has induced an increased bias toward shorter games, I actually got to play a bunch of games this month. For various reasons, I also have some slightly more in depth comments this month than usual.

39 games played, 17 titles, (3 new to me) over 10 sessions with 20 different people.

Hot Games for September, 2004

Heroscape (9 plays)

I'm writing a more complete review which I will post soon, but it's certainly the big hit recently. I'm not 100% sure why I'm as enchanted by this game that at many levels is rather frivolous, but I'll try to deconstruct that a little bit in my review. Suffice to say, it's been a lot of fun

Ok, this one deserves explanation. I am not a fan of "collectible" games, by which I mean those with artificial rarities and random contents packages. I'm fine with "expandable" games, like the above Heroscape, or RoboRally, or Carcassone, but the random aspect bothers me as a consumer. Years ago, I played Magic to see what all the hooplah was about. It was fun, not amazing, but fun. A friend and I decided we weren't interested in diving into the money-draining pit of collecting, but if we each bought a bunch (about $40 worth) of cards, we could play together and it would be fun. It was, a little. Unfortunately, $40 worth of cards doesn't really give you a great deal of deck building flexibility. So, we played some and I largely abandoned it. Recently, another friend dove in head first and has a great many cards including many of the pre-constructed "theme decks", which we used in the 5 games I played. That works better as a game. It was fun with interesting gameplay, albeit quite a bit of luck. It seems like deck construction makes for a very interesting game, but to truly have all the options available to you, you need 4 copies of each card to choose from. That's expensive and impractical. A few games were fun, but for the few hundred dollars worth of cards it would take to make the deck building options feel reasonable, I'd rather have a bunch more German games.

Maharaja (1 play)

This is good. Nothing stunningly brilliant, but not totally unoriginal either. It's got several nice interlocking mechanisms and seemingly several paths to victory. It's not as good as I hoped it would be, but it is much better than I feared it might be.

Phoenix (3 plays)

Quick and entertaining two-player game which is more fun than it seems like it should be given it's simplicity and straightforwardness.

Einfach Genial (2 plays)

I need to play this more before I have a sense as to whether there any genuinely deep strategy or tactics options, but its engaging enough even before such depth (or lack thereof) is apparent.

I think the first time I played this, I may have played with the wrong rules. It's better with the right rules, or at least its better with the expansion deck I played with than with the built in decks.

Personal

Professional

I am a Engineering Director at Google. My team and I work on Search.

Previously, I was the CTO at an 802.11 location and security company, Newbury Networks in Boston. In June, 1999 I received my Masters degree from the MIT Media Lab. I graduated from MIT (undergraduate) in June, 1997, in physics. Prior to that I was CTO of net.Genesis from 1994 to 1996.